Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: do not confiscate guns

Posted 1 year ago on March 7, 2013, 8:49 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


GUNS – Facts & opinion & solution


FACTS: There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre” ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are un-licensed
It is illegal to drive an un-insured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.


OPINIONS
The real problem never discussed:
It is not the gun sellers or the gun buyers – or even the guns - it is the gun OWNERS

I would divide most gun deaths into five categories: the Sandy Hook mass murderers, drug related street crime, non-drug related street crime, “personal” crimes of anger, suicide. Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ). The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns”.
The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs.

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help –
but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them. If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!

S.E.E....BELOW
SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

71 Comments

71 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Here is a different Perspective on our Violent Government moving against Guns to ban them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
to get his army of lemmings to keep buying guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dar6K2STVVQ

3►
DO: WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople

house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our 11,000+ gun disasters:


1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless when storing your guns

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Over ten bullet magazines are illegal to own { 2nd amendment has no relevance }

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program ($100-$500 / year)

Penalties must be very high in money ( equal to ten years fees ) & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
▬► The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
▬►It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.
▬►For $300 you can buy a legal accessory to make an AR15 fully automatic (800rpm)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That line could be between you and and an AR15.


And of course if we stopped money going from advocacy groups & corporations to buy politicians, this would be a very big step in the right direction
Watch our videos: Hedges, Kucinich, Warren, Chomsky , Sanders ,
Romney, Reich, Hartmann, Maddow, Nader, Feingold, Jefferson
And read our analysis of Corporate Personhood & Citizens United & evaluate the national polls that prove the truth. See the new HJR29


http://corporaionsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Why should the police know what kind of gun I have and sample bullets for it?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

so that if you commit a crime, it is easier to find you. just like a car

[-] 1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

So it's pretty much just a list of people who could be dangerous and cause trouble.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

sort of like licensed drivers

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Not at all like licensed drivers.

[-] -2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Bensdad you are a man of zeal without understanding...

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

██████░████.░░.█████.░░█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ ████░░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░.█░░█░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█░ █░░░░█ ░.█░░░░░ █
░░ █░░░ █░░░█.░.█████ ░░█████░ █████


Troll “tells” ►
Attack the poster - not the post
"re-interpret" the post rather than quote it ( ala faux noose )
Lie
Change the subject
Afraid to answer questions


[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

He sure is.

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Norhing more dangerous than that!

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

There need to be reasonable background checks on semiautomatic firearms at a minimum. Perhaps a certified mental health evaluation. As well as certified firearms safety training. This is my position if you would like to buy a semiautomatic weapon. Not sure I feel compelled to subject non-semiautomatic weapon purchasers to the same restrictions. After a careful and thoughtful review I am not so sure I want to restrict the ability of the American people to as a last resort rise up against tyranny.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The buyers of guns are not the problem
The problem is the gun OWNERS

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

I think the best that can be done in that regard is engage the license holders (pistol permit, hunting permit, etc.) during the re-licensing process or perhaps engaging individuals engaging in ammunition or accessories sales. We have to be equitable though these people presumably have broken no law. Perhaps some sort of national gun, ammunition, and accessory card could aid in the situation however there will be those opposed to a database of any sort. Or the federal handling over the states. They will view registration of guns as tantamount to war. I am simply suggesting national uniform weapons law which would enable both a holder to travel without fear of changing laws nationally. And to expedite transactions on his behalf. For example if you want ammo and you have a card which proves you have had a background check and safety course within the last say 3 years where as if you don't have a card 10 business day wait. The bonus for gun owners (gotta give them something) is they can now travel without fear of running afoul of a different states law. because the permit system will be national if you can constitutionally achieve that they will be permitted to attain a firearm permit that in fact a national permit.

[-] 0 points by brady (-5) 1 year ago

The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments must go. So must Posse Comitatus.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html#ixzz2N1TSFaol

The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted an historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads:

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

This historical quote was apparently too much for Facebook's censors to bear. They suspended our account and gave us a "final warning" that one more violation of their so-called "community guidelines" would result in our account being permanently deactivated.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thanks for this...

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

You're welcome. Sharing is free.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

How right you are...

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Actually, the 2nd amendment gives EVERY American the right to own a gun. Its just another amendment that is being wittled away along with all the other ones.

You would have loved the "free speech zones" here at the RNC. What a joke.

Our nation is bombing people all over. And they are passing things that can only mean they are planning on a shit storm over here soon.

You are going to wish you had a lot of guns eventually. The war WILL come to the empire. It always does.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

yes - Actually, the 2nd amendment gives EVERY American the right to "bear arms" .- I was not precise - a death row inmate might be an exception.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

You hit the nail on the head, my friend. Which is why they're focusing on banning assault weapons and high-capacity clips. If the DHS purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and 7,000 assault rifles wasn't enough, now they've purchased 2700 hi-tech armored vehicles. Check this out:

http://www.naturalnews.com/039345_DHS_arms_race_armored_vehicles.html

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Debunked. It appears DHS has just 16 vehicles. The other 2700 are being refitted for the marines.

http://www.businessinsider.com/homeland-security-serving-warrants-mrap-2013-3

http://media.navistar.com/index.php?s=43&item=533

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6638) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, I heard that after posting that link. Thanks. I have a bad habit of not checking multiple sources before posting.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I almost fell for it too.

[-] -2 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

Untrained civilians with guns could not stop the US army. So why bother, especially since gun owners injure themselves and their families more than they protect them.

For real civilian protection, you would need to permit people to buy hand grenades, missiles, drones, nuclear arms, tanks, fighter jets, etc...

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

I thought the same thing but with the slide fire bumb technology you can fire upwards of 600 rounds per min., in addition similar firearms have been employed in afghanistan and iraq with great effect against the us military. While it is true that any hillbilly militia will die fast those of us who are intelligent and motivated should not be so easily discounted.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

The US military wouldn’t stand a chance against American citizens in the event of an armed insurrection. Americans are armed to the teeth and trained. A lot of them have military experience. Not to mention that at least half of the military would change sides rather than fight their own countryman. Me thinks you have no military or war experience. I have both.

But the bright side is such a war will never happen; at least not on a large scale. There may be a remote possibility of State wanting to secede from the union that might cause a military presence, or may armed rioting in some areas that may cause military intervention. The thought of Zimmerman being acquitted or something that like could cause multiple riots. But something like that would be handled by the police or National Guard.

I do concede a lot of people keep gun to protect themselves against the government. Kinda a dumb idea, but it’s still a common belief. So, the bottom line is the only practical need for a gun is for self defense. That’ why I own guns.

As far as confiscation goes. Never happen. People would hide their guns. First you have to know who has guns; and there is currently no record of gun ownership. People won’t register them. You think the war on drugs is a failure, confiscating guns would be twice as bad.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Don't underestimate the bureaucracies will to live and what it will do to survive. You are going to get a good look soon with the dea and Colorado and Washington. I predict a total and complete crackdown on any and all violations.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

You could be right, but I’m a member of two gun forums, and the talk is defiant. I’d say upward of 80% say they will not comply with any new rules.

Several states, twelve I think, have submitted State level legislation saying they will not enforce any new gun rules. My State is pondering legislation making it illegal to enforce any new gun rules. They say they will arrest the any federal agents attempting to enforce any new rules. Also a number of law enforcement agencies have publically said they will not enforce any new rules.

It’s starting to look like Congress isn’t going to do anything. The gun control issue has moved to the States. With New York, California and Colorado passing stricter gun controls; and a lot more States being defiant. In my State it’s a done deal that open carry will pass. It’ll be like the old west, with people walking around with a six-gun on their hip.

My take is implementing additional gun controls will be about as effective as the drug war. Passing laws doesn’t mean people will follow them. But. As you say, we’ll see.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

I think the best that can be done in regards to gun law is engage purchasers and require proof of mental health and safety certification in regards to those currently possessing licensed firearms; engaging the license holders (pistol permit, hunting permit, etc.) during the re-licensing process or perhaps engaging individuals engaging in ammunition or accessories sales and requiring the same.

We have to be equitable though through the process; firearms are a protected right and people presumably have broken no law. Perhaps some sort of national gun, ammunition, and accessory card and law could aid in the situation however there will be those opposed to a database of any sort. Or the federal handling over the states. They will view registration of guns as tantamount to war.

I am simply suggesting a national uniform weapons law which would enable both a holder to travel without fear of changing laws nationally as well as to expedite transactions on his behalf. For example if you want to make a weapons related purchase and you have a card which proves you have had a background check and safety course within the last say 3 years the transaction may occur immediately; where as if you don't have a card a 10-20 business day wait maybe in place. The bonus for gun owners (gotta give them something it's called negotiation) is they can now travel without fear of running afoul of a different states law because the permit system will be national if you can constitutionally achieve that; gun owners will be permitted to attain a firearm permit that in fact a national permit and allows a holder to over-ride a state's law so long as they are lawful holders of the permit. So if you wanna open carry an ar-15 with the slide fire bump technology and an extended clip in nyc and you have the national permit you are golden. Anyways it's just something I have been kicking around in my head a few days.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

There is some value in what you say. A national uniform law would be nice, but highly unlikely it will ever happen.

I’ve discussed gun control so much in the past two months I’m burnt out. Just weary of talking about it. At this point people have made up their minds. So I’ve backed off the issue. Don’t even discuss it on the gun forums anymore.

Thing is I’m not a gun nut. I don’t have a horse in this race. I don’t own an AR or AK (anymore). Just not interested in them. I have only one pistol that could be affected if a magazine capacity restriction was made law. My other guns aren’t an issue in this debate (so far). My conceal carry guns (which I seldom carry) hold seven rounds.

So, on the gun debate, I’m at the point, I say whatever happens, happens. As long as they don’t require registration or try confiscation.

Lastly I’ll add one thing I’d like to see concerning guns. One thing I would support would be more training to buy a gun or get a permit to carry one. There are millions of gun owners who shot, maybe 100 rounds and never again shoot it. These people have little or no knowledge of self defense shooting, the mental factor of shooting, legal implications… and the list goes on.

I’d love to see at least a week long training session that covers not only how to pull the trigger, but all other related aspects of owing a weapon.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

See I know how to woo a gun owner.:-)

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Yep, you wore me down. Just another 80 million to go. :o

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

having common sense is easy!

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Narley, friend, I would like to dissuade you of these ideas. Especially this one: "But the bright side is such a war will never happen; at least not on a large scale." But I would like to stop it, it need not happen to accomplish our purpose of removing money from our political process and ending elite dominance over us. Would you care to talk? I've read a few of your postings here and think we have common interests and goals.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Thank you kindly for the offer. I’m flattered someone thinks my posts are worth reading. But I must decline. The truth is I’m not an OWS follower. I’m not anti-OWS, just disagree with a lot of what I read here. I just don’t fit the OWS mold.

Actually I’m a conservative thinker. Maybe even Libertarian leaning; but not party affiliated. I’ve been on this site for about a year under three different names. I use one name until I get into it with someone and they start stalking me, so I come up with another ID. I don’t post under multiple ID’s however.

My interest in this forum has more to do with my fascination in what some people see as solutions rather than a real interest. I make no effort to change anyone’s mind here. I just add a occasionally post an opinion. For me it’s something to do on a cold night.

I hope my honest admissions haven’t offended you. Be well my friend

P.S. I am curious what it is you want to dissuade me from. I by no means advocate violence.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

The real solution insofar as political and economic thought is libertarian socialism with technocratic and judicial checks and balances.

More specifically economically we need to smash the monopolies across all industry into a million pieces. End privatization, return the commons to the people. Encourage a green opensource fair trade re-localized economy orientated on non-hierarchical principals based on worker owned and controlled business managed by sociocratic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy principals.

Politically we need to explore a system based on localized governance and representation as the primary driver of our national government. This could be accomplished with more autonomous control by city/county governments and government based on direct democracy and meritocracy. By empowering each region directly and projecting this out nationally we can have a much more participatory and equitable governance that will represent the will of the people of a given region as well as the nation as a whole. There is a bunch more to the concepts but I think you bet the basic economic and political rhetoric.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I get spooked when people talk about socialist government. Socialist Russia comes to mind. I’m quite fond of a constitutional republic. I think it can work. At the same time I see the US moving toward socialism every day.

I strongly agree large corporations should be broken up. Any company who can control an entire market needs to be taken down. The banks and financial institutions should be first. It worked when Bell Telephone was broken up by Judge Green in the 70’s. It should be done again with other “to big to fail” corporations.

But the problem is how do we get from point A to point B. Most people know the solutions to most of our problems. The task at hand is to get people to listen or to care. I suggest we won’t be able to get people interested. I think the conditions we live under will have to change. Things will have to get much worse before the masses will take to the streets. Hopefully, eventually, we will have an American spring.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The most successful nation in the European economic union is Germany, and they are an industrialised socialist democracy.

You're spooked by the terminology, rather than the reality.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Marxist and anarchist thought is the apex of human social thought.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

" I see the US moving toward socialism every day"

Where?

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

"More specifically economically we need to smash the monopolies across all industry into a million pieces. End privatization, return the commons to the people."

I can get behind this...

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

just that?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Well, there are other things I like, but don't think possible at the moment. Of course, I've been wrong before too. I just asked you what LibSoc was on another thread. I know a little bit about what Chomsky thinks, but am interested in your opinion.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

In a nut shell it is worker owned democratic and a non-hierarchical work place and thus society. This enhances cooperation and as a result productivity (another pleasant side effect is this thing called a community where people all have a common stake in others well being) while still providing the "capitalist" incentive for success and prosperity.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thanks, good summary. It's late and the bed calls seductively (it's been a long day, and tomorrow is early). I'd like to talk later, if you're good with it. Are you familiar with my advocacy?

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

You are welcome. I do not think you advocate violence, but the tea leaves do not paint a rosy DHS picture. No one buys 1.6 billion bullets without a few targets in mind. Moreover, the international financial picture is turning black -- especially in regard to China's apparent attempt to create a gold-backed currency. Some OPEC nations, beyond the axis of evil, are beginning to accept another currency in exchange for oil. What if the only remaining support for the petrodollar is the House of Saud? Think we might be in for economic shock, inflation, and social dislocation? The USG appears to think so...

And as far as your political leanings are concerned, "but not party affiliated" is really the only thing that matters: You've not succumbed to either of the cults of personality.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

OK, A common misconception is DHS bought 1,6 billion rounds of ammo. What they really did was sign a contract to buy up to 1.6 billion rounds at a fixed price over a period of time. I think the idea was to get a good price over time. Also, if memory serves, a lot of it was target ammo rather self defense ammo. My thinking is if they expected a war they wouldn’t be buying .40 caliber handgun ammo. They’d be buying 5.56 or .308 AR type military ammo.

By the way. Ammo is really hard to find right now and very expensive. All this gun control talk has gun folks hoarding ammo.

As for potential dark days ahead. I think the most likely scenario is a financial collapse, or as it’s more communally called SHTF. A situation where the government can’t continue entitlements, where companies and corporations lay-off tens of millions of people.

Cold, hungry, scared people are dangerous. In a situation like this the government will have to implement martial law and people will band together in small groups for security and safety. Street gangs will grow and become predatory. People will need every gun they can find.

The belief described above is this situation will happen is widely held; especially by gun owners. I used to think like that, but have changed my mind ti think SHTF will be occur more in slow motion, over a period of decades; and we will adapt as time goes along.

So, since we’re telling scare stories. Let me tell you of my concern. The world is unstable, and seems to become more so every day. I think it’s conceivable that at some point, somewhere, some delusional leader of a country will use weapons of mass destruction, in mass. Some day it will happen. IMHO.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Delivered or not, it's quite the purchase. And not the only one. I agree that "[c]old, hungry, scared people are dangerous." And martial law will most likely be declared -- the USG is preparing for it. But what might be the end result, considering the character of our government of late? OWS posed no serious threat to law and order, camping in the parks, but consider what happened -- a federally co-oridinated police attack nationwide. All the old COINTELPRO tricks...

Tried to find any gold or silver lately? In "Eyewitness to History", Hemingway describes the inflation in Germany immediately following the First World War. Interesting account. No one was spared.

And your last para may well be accurate -- a biological agent...

[-] -1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Yea, I think the government has developed strategies to deal with a breakdown in society and SHTF in general. Sort of to be expected. Part of governments job is to be prepared to deal with emergencies, whether they be a natural disaster, riots or whatever. I’m glad they do it.

But I stop short of thinking the government is trying to overthrow our democracy and implement some type of totalitarian government. However, It seems clear they are monitoring, watching and infiltrating groups they think may be subversive. Some parts of OWS fall into that category; as do extreme right wing groups, like militias. But I think most of this type activity is intended for public safety, not politically oriented. For instance, I’m glad they arrested the guys wanting to blow up the bridge last year.

So, the bottom line is I’m not afraid of our government. They aren’t the bogie man wanting to suppress up. They do some incredibly stupid things, but wanting to harm citizens isn’t on their agenda.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

That's an honest opinion. I have a great deal of respect for honesty, especially intellectual honesty. But I do differ on some points. I would like to think as you, again, but something isn't "right" -- there are simply too many signs, all happening too quickly, to ignore...

As you and I both know, little "panics" have occurred before (I've known a fair number of "preppers" for a long time). Sometimes they get, well, excited. It's not that they were necessarily wrong, but the sky wasn't exactly falling either. Problem is, while they were mainly concerned about one or two things, several dozen or more "things" are apparently in current play...

Do you read John Williams' ShadowStats? He has some interesting current employment figures...

http://www.shadowstats.com/

I don't honestly know if I should be afraid of my government or not. That's the crux of the matter. I live in a (very) small town and either know, or have met, most of the city council, chief of police and officers, fire chief and crew, city workers and do not fear them. They are good people and for the most part I like them. I don't fear traffic stops, but dislike red light cameras.

But...

Bush doctrine, that is to say, you're either with us or against us in perpetual war -- and, if against us, a preemptive "strike" is in order... Is now coupled with legal execution or indefinite detainment, without trial or due process, of Americans -- and has been acted upon... Blood has been spilled. American blood. Think what you like about the man and his son, but they were citizens, same as you or I.

I think this government corrupt. I publicly advocate Constitutional means to challenge that corruption. Should I be concerned?

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

The common belief is SHTF will be a depression of great magnitude. Millions of people out of work, no more government entitlements, violence and predatory activity where people take what they need from other by force. The government infrastructure will fail and entitlements will go away. Maybe even the physical infrastructure will fail; no power or water service, etc… Basically it will be every man for himself.

I don’t believe the above scenario. I think it will be more what Greece is going through right now. Protests, some violence, a change in government and restructure of government. I doubt society will fall into total chaos. People will group together by race, religious belief and commonality for safety and security. It may end up as a third world living environment. Most large cities would not be safe. But in the long run cooler heads will prevail.

Overall I’m optimistic. I think the government will implement stop gap measures and just print more money. My opinion is SHTF on a nationwide basis is decades off, if it ever happens at all. Still, living in 3rd world conditions is not something to look forward to; I’m keeping my guns.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I sincerely hope you are right. I have a wife, daughter and grand-daughter and no desire to see SHTF come to pass. But in the event that circumstances take a turn for the worse, well... For now, just tuck my advocacy into your back pocket for a rainy day. Because my greatest fear is that withdrawing our consent in an election might become our last best hope in the face of tyranny.

[-] 2 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Yea, I to worry about the world my two granddaughters will grow up in. My kids are grown and probably won’t see the worst of it. But the grandkids will live in a much different world. I pray it’s a better one.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

In the words of Immortal Technique, an avid occupier, "Its working out pretty well for the Afghans..."

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Places like Engand and Australia have lots and lots of violent crime. Their crimes rates have gone up since their large gun restrictions.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Crime rates?? Got some stats?

Murders by guns have dropped. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/31/stephen-king/stephen-king-says-australia-cracked-down-guns-homi/

Homicides by firearm did decline after 1996 — in fact, had already been in decline.

One path to "almost 60 percent" comes from statistics compiled in part by Philip Alpers, a public health professor at the University of Sydney. The number of gun homicides fell from 69 in 1996 (excluding the 35 victims of the mass shooting prompting the laws) to 30 in 2012.

That’s a decrease of 56.5 percent.

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Congragulations on the reduction in gun crime but what about the increase in violent crime rate like rape, robberies, muging, home invasion and the rest.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I'm not aware of any increase in those either. Though I do avoid cities, because that is where crime seems to be worse. And, as we all know, criminals can get weapons despite laws and restrictions. Does banning drugs get rid of that problem?

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

Do you realize you just agreed with me

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

"While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner."

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencingcing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Like I said, did banning drugs stop people from getting them?

And because of political correctness, we can't see how the increase in immigration from disparate nations has contributed to the crime statistics.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Of course not. That wouldn't be polite.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Poverty has gone up since the new AU & GB gun laws
HIV research has made great progress since the new AU & GB gun laws

[-] 1 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

What does that have to do with anything? You're just saying that because you know I'm right. A decrease in legally owned guns causes a spike in gun crime.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I am more interested in preventing gun DEATHS
you can live without your wallet
you cannot live without your blood

[-] 2 points by Spring13 (-58) 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that getting you're skull busted open with a pip makes you jest as dead as getting shot in a drive by or a home invasion.

[-] -3 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

While you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, they do not place a piece of duct tape over your mouth when you buy your ticket, do they? If society is willing to trust you to keep your mouth shut (questionable) then there is no reason to not trust that my gun will stay home at night and refrain from a rampage.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

tell that to the 20 school children

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 1 year ago

Yeah, I keep forgetting it was that darned AR-15's fault. Sorry for being so dense. Who'd a thunk a gun would have it in for school children?